Jonathan,
Not satisfied with your answer, I'll explain below.
JONATHAN
> [...] a common "objective" discussion about
> truth is always a discussion WITHIN AN AGREED CONTEXT. The "validity" of
> context itself is outside the discussion - making it rather subjective.
>[snip]Context has to be
> implicitly agreed, and has to provide a comfortable working environment.
> This a quality judgement - coming *before* subjectivity vs. objectivity.
WALTER
> Great writing Jonathan. I'm intrigued by this 'Quality judgement'. It's the
> (often) unconscious agreement/acceptance of the environment the Truth is in.
> History has proven that this context can change or better shift immensely. Take
> for example the first maps of the world being flat in stead of round. It's the mythos
> that defines our truths ... that defines our Good.
[And]
> You go on, writing: "However, the context isn't all subjective either". I strongly
> agree with you, but I want to ask you on what you think this context is based
> then? I've been poundering on this for some time. I'm affraid it comes right back
> to the discussion that Struan once started and we never really finished (see
> part of 'Pirsig on human nature'-june 99). This is an excerpt of the posts:
>
> Struan:
> We are discussing nothing less than the whole concept of everything
> being quality, assuming we use the term in anything more than the most
> banal sense where we could simply restate it as everything is X.
JONATHAN
> The question becomes "Is it valuable to try and define context even we know
> that there is no end to it?"
I don't see how the question becomes what you say. Maybe I'm mistaken, but
wether or not it's valuable to define context seems to be a different question, or not?
What we agreed on is that our truths are dependent on context. The context itself is
not questioned and implicitly agreed on. You call this implicit agreement the
'quality judgement - coming *before* subjectivity vs. objectivity'. My question is
now what you think the source of this Quality Judgement is?
Like Ken said in respons to Struan:
> I am interested in knowing what your view of the source of the good is.
> As you say, a definition and source of "the good" is a definite requirement
> for the validity of the MoQ. I have puzzled over this for some time and can
> find no source for "good" except the universe.
[and]
> Maybe there is no source and the MoQ is a bunch of crap.
> Maybe "good" is only applicable to certain narrow groups with each
> group having a different definition. I will be interested to hear your
> views. At the moment I am up the creek without a paddle.
Later Struan clamed to be up the same creek (such coincidence) with no
paddle too! It's slippery stuff. Everytime I get near a sence for the answer it
escapes me. The importance for me has to do with the question that is very
close: "is it valuable to me if our good would be only human based in stead of
based in a deeper universal way?'
Walter
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:35 BST